![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b6a70bce-f540-4e4b-8719-6f7dd540c433.png)
Niche communities ftw. Tbh I kinda hope Lemmy stays relatively small.
Niche communities ftw. Tbh I kinda hope Lemmy stays relatively small.
There is no war in Ba Sing Se
Looks like the image is just too compressed to distinguish his ear from his head
Would it be ethical to ask her to gender swap cis transphobes? Because I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t be tempted.
PCussy
Death Grips
Or just increase the size of the pen tool…
Nah, it’s just a joke. Maybe a cisnormative joke, but as a trans woman myself I didn’t think twice about it.
In my book, for something to be transphobic it has to intentionally discredit or attack trans people.
These words exist for a reason they mean different things.
Correct, and you’re still misusing them according to the people who actually identify with these labels. Atheism is the answer to what you believe, and agnosticism is the answer to what you know.
I don’t believe God exists and I don’t know if God exists, so I’m an agnostic atheist. For you to assume atheists are gnostic by default is like me assuming Christians are Mormons by default. It’d be even more ridiculous for me to go on and argue with Christians that “Christian” means “Mormon.”
“Female” is a descriptor of sex
Just like “theory” is a rigorously tested hypothesis. We’re not all professional biologists and doctors, it’s different colloquially.
Sure. And nobody claimed “God doesn’t exist.” Two people now have told you that you’re mistaken, but you insist.
From our perspective it seems like you’re imposing a baseless claim onto us so you can feel better about your own baseless claims. Only theists say atheism is a claim.
In addition to what the others said already: she was recently accosted by right wingers for making a “happy pride” post where she said she was glad to have all the LGBTQ parents and friends in her audience, and was glad they were who they were.
That’s probably the reason it’s an Onion article.
I don’t think there is one single test that could encompass bad standards of evidence, but the whole “just have faith” thing is a dead giveaway. Hostility towards skepticism is another. Circular logic is also a pretty good indicator, like saying your holy text is the truth because your holy text says it’s true. I guess the simplest and most effective test would be to see if the standard of evidence could be used to justify any claim.
And for good standards of evidence, I think it depends on the context and claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that. If you told me “I got a pet goldfish” the only evidence I really need is your word. But for claims about how the universe works and why it is the way it is, you might need much more sound reasoning, math that checks out when measurements or numbers are involved, a demonstration or test to serve as proof, etc…
Lastly, by agreeing that there is not universality …
The majority of people who smoke don’t die from it but that doesn’t mean cigarettes aren’t problematic. I’m not saying all religions are bigoted or anything, but I am saying having any sort of doctrine opens the door to outdated beliefs overriding what we’d normally consider moral, and that by itself is problematic.
I’d also just like to say I think this has been the most civil conversation in the whole thread, so cheers to that lol
Wouldn’t that be long term memory loss
Still arguably both. Even if their doctrine isn’t problematic, the sort of standard of evidence you seem to need to believe religious claims is what gets us things like antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
It may not be universal but you’re certainly opening the door for it if you believe truth comes from uncritical belief. That by itself is still “problematic” even if the consequences aren’t as blatant.
I wasn’t even disagreeing with you. But rage on, queen.
Ask literally any atheist here if they claim “god does not exist”
That’s true, they can mould their interpretation however they need to so it conforms to their own morality, but that doesn’t come from the religion.
If you gave an alien any of the abrahamic holy texts and then dropped it on earth it’d probably behave pretty abhorrently. In order to behave more civilly it’d have to learn from the society it was dropped into, not the religion.
Most churches and other theists do a pretty good job of doing that and that’s a great thing, but the way I see it, the religion itself is inherently problematic until people mould it into something resembling secular morality.
No, this was your misunderstanding:
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?”
The language is irrelevant, you’re claiming something that’s just untrue for 99% of atheists. You going on to distinguish “agnostics” from “atheists” isn’t the real issue.
Reddit hasn’t felt the same for me since around 2021/22.
At some point it stopped being a platform for niche communities to come together and became a cesspool of corporate/government astroturfing and karma farm bots with a side of real people.